Lectal Variation in Party Positions

Ideological affordances of time- and space frames of reference in

political discourse

ICLC, Edmonton, Alberta, 28-06-2013

Bertie KaalDept of Language & Communication, VU University Amsterdam

The Network Institute

From Text to Political PositionsFrom Sentiments and Opinions in Texts

to Political-Party Positions

Content-Computational-

Discourse Analysis

Bertie Kaal, Isa Maks, Annemarie van Elfrinkhof

VU University Amsterdam

Same time, same place

Same issuesSame labelsSame context

BUT NOT

Same worldviewSame ideologySame discourse

(©Taylor Jones, El Nuevo Dia, 26-10-2012.Puerto Rico)

“We are indeed so good at thinking spatially that converting non-spatial problems into spatial ones seems to be one of the fundamental tricks of human cognition.”

(Levinson 2003: 16)

From basic facts to social realities

Our neural organising schemata rely on the primacy of spatial cognition for orientation and navigation in the real and in the abstract worlds we imagine.

(Levinson 2003: 16)

“How do we get from electrons to elections and from protons to presidents?”

(Searle 2010: 3)

Space and Time

Function: The ground for making sense of our social situatedness

STATIVE SPACE AND DYNAMIC TIMEEx. The nation state as a mandatory space for government agency.

Effect: Selective space and time frames (here and now)Ex. “Holland is full … ”

POINT OF VIEW IN SPACE AND TIMEBut how can mental frames lead to intentions for action?Ex. “Holland is full, so we must close the borders.” (Fortuyn 2002)

Agency requires deonticity

Facts require Attitude to gauge their importance (attention) relative to a point of view.

Modality of Attitude

Function:

Positioning objects and ideas relative to a deictic centre to regulate attention.

Effect: Regulates attention, immediacy, desirability

Worldview architecture

• Spatial frames of reference (stative)

• Temporality (dynamic)

• Point of View (Origo)

• Modality of deontic and epistemic attitude (force dynamics)

A Deictic Space Model

Origo

Time/FutureTime/Past

Space

Modality

Adapted from Chilton (2004: 58)

Levels of meaning construction

1. Meaning-Form MappingLinguistic elements and constructions enable us to represent knowledge and experience

Text worlds: enable us to represent relations and force dynamics in narrative structures.

2. Meaning-Context-Meaning MappingDiscourse worlds: Where language meets society.Verbal and conceptual constructions begin to make sense in the non-formal social context in which they function.

Discourse worlds and social worlds

1. Epistemic alignment (Epistemic communities, Van Dijk 2006)

2. A schematic system of• Time and Space FoRs in which to configure facts• Location of perspective (point of view)• Distribution of attention (modality)• Force dynamics (cf. Talmy 2001)

From protons to presidents

3. DeonticityUnderlying non-denotational, moral presumptions about epistemic facts relative to a subjective point of view (Chilton 2011; Searle 2010)

Social-empirical Worldview approach

“[…] a world view is a system of co-ordinates or a frame of reference in which everything presented to us by our diverse

experiences can be placed.”(Apostel in Aerts et al. 2007: 9)

Function: to negotiate and establish common ground for social action

Worldview in Political reasoning:One world and many worlds

Scenario for ideologically motivated action

A. A perspective on the exiting order (here/past & present)B. A vision of an ideal‘good society’ (here/future)

C. Political action to get from (A) to (B)

(cf. Heywood 2007: 11-12)

D. Public support. How does the public know who to vote for?

Vote Advice Applications: A new industry

Homer Simpson’s vote in the Alberta Election 2012

Calgary Herald 29-03-2012

Vote Compass Netherlands 2010Progressive

Conservative

Left Right

www.kieskompas.nl

Corpus-based discourse analysis for party positioning

ProcedureSelect a corpus of like-data: ManifestosCode book designTest and structure for annotation reliability.

Function: Substantiates accountability of results and interpretive conclusions.

Result: Insights into lectal variation in parties’ spatial ground.

Acceptable

Desirable

Not-desirable

∞

Non-Western

TIMEp

Global

Unacceptable

EU

NL-border

NL

∞ ∞

< 10 >> 10 <

ATTITUDE

TIMEfORIGO

SPACE

Western

Deictic Discourse Space Model (based on Chilton 2004)

Origo = point of view: S = Here; T = Now; A = Immanent, certain, necessary

Certain

A TSM Codebook

Time and temporality: historic events, recent developments, past, present, future (e.g. WWII, now, always), temporal verbs (stimulate). NOT tense. Space: geographic and abstract references to relevant political space (citizens, Brussels, Western World, Islamization) Modality of Attitude: modifiers/intensifiers of Time and Space relative to Origo (e.g., must has stronger urgency than want).

Coding Attitude

Epistemic and deontic modal expressions (inspired by Chilton

2005; Werth 1999) + expressions of desirability.

is, necessary, probable, possible, uncertain, improbable, impossible, is notmust be, should be, might, may, might not, may not, can’t bedeserve wish, believe prefer perhaps unnecessaryunacceptable

 

Annotation

Space

Time Attitude

Tool: Kyoto Annotation Format

Christian Democrat scope Green Left scope

Origo = point of view: S = Here; T = Now; A = Immanent, certain, necessary

Space-Time-Attitude

“Globalization is putting our economic position under pressure. To prevent decline we will continue to invest in the infrastructure.” (CDA 2010)

“We are a world country. Our economy runs on energy from abroad. … Our future depends on good neighbours and far friends.” (GL 2010)

Conclusion: Space and Ideology

Discursive constructions of Time, Space and Attitude relate to Progressive-Conservative, but not to the Left-Right dimension

LEFT RIGHT Social priorities -- Economic priorities

CONSERVATIVE PROGRESSIVETraditional, Authoritarian, Nationalistic – Green, Alternative, Libertarian

(related to past-present-future and attention space)

ConclusionsDiscourse analysis for cognitive grounding in layered constructions of emergent meaning (Barsalou 2008) :

Origin: the Primacy of Time- and Space FoRs (Levinson 2010)

Lectal variation in Scope and Figure-Ground for variation in attitudes to ‘Fit’ same space and time (Geeraerts 2005; Searle 2010)

Combining epistemic and deontic worldview analysis to explain how we get from selective basic facts to social facts.

Corpus analysis: Guides interpretations of the contextual function of ideologically motivated grounding of worldviews.

Looking outwardTSA: a cognitive schema for discourse analysis

Empowerment

“You need to understand the roots of identity to understand it and to challenge it.” (Harder ICLC12)

Functions • Stimulates awareness of diversity • Affords alternative imaginaries of identity, and • Questions the scope of deliberative space

Applicationse.g., in End-of-life care; Policy making: points of view; Management, migration & diversity studies

References

Aerts, D., L. Apostel, B. De Moor, S. Hellemans, E. Maex, H. Van Belle J. Van der Veken (2007 [1994]). "World views. From fragmentation to integration". Translation of Apostel and Van der Veken (1991) with some additions. Brussels: VUB Press. [Internet edition]Barsalou, L.W. 2008. Grounded Cognition. Annual review of Psychology 59: 617-645.Budge, I. 1994. A new spatial theory of party competition. British Journal of political Science 24(4)443-467.Chilton, P. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse. London: Routledge.Chilton, P. 2005. Vectors, viewpoints and viewpoint shift: Toward a discourse of space theory. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3: 78-116.Cienki, A. , B. Kaal and E. Maks. 2010. Mapping world view in political texts using Discourse Space Theory: Metaphor as an analytical tool. Presented at RAaM 8, VU Amsterdam. http://vu-nl.academia.edu/BertieKaal Entman, R.M. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43,pp. 51-58.Evans, V. Forthcoming. On Time: Temporal reference, access semantics and metaphor. www.vyvevans.net (accessed April 2012)Herman, D. (Ed.). 2003. Narratve Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. CSLI.Heywood, A. 2007. Political ideologies (4th ed.). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Kaal, B. and Maks. E. 2011. Stylistics in context: Semantic and discursive aspects of subjectivity in political texts. Paper presented at Stylistics Across Disciplines, 16-17 June, 2011, Leiden, The Netherlands .Levinson, S.C. 1996. Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslinguistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M.A. Peterson, L. Nadel and M.F. Garrett (Eds), Language and Space. Cambridge: CUP, pp. 109-169. Levinson, S.C. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP.Searle, J. 2011. Making the Social World. Oxford: OUP.Searle, J. and D. Vanderveken. 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: CUP.Smith, Arnold. 2000. Spatial cognition without spatial concepts. In S. O’Nuallain (Ed), Spatial Cognition: Foundations and

applications. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 127-135.Tomasello, M. 2009. Why we Cooperate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Van Dijk, T.A. 2006. Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political ideologies 11, pp. 115-140.Van Elfrinkhof, A., E, Maks and B. Kaal. Forthcoming. From text to political positions: The convergence of political, linguistic and

discourse analysis. In Kaal et al. From Text to Political Positions: Converging approaches to estimating party positions, Ch. 14. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Werth, P. 1999. Text Worlds: Representing conceptual space in discourse. Longman.